Analysis: the two fatal flaws in Google Chrome OS

Why Google's desktop operating system will fail

A lack of flexibility will doom Google's latest ego trip to the dustbin of history. Here's why Google Chrome OS is destined to fail.

The Google Chrome OS is here - sort of. This week, Google was kind enough to give the world a sneak peek at its nascent desktop operating system. And after months of speculation (and more than a few bogus screenshot galleries), I can finally say that I've seen the future... and it's not Google Chrome OS.

The preceding statement should come as no surprise to readers of my Enterprise Desktop blog. I came to a similar conclusion months ago. When news of the existence of a Google OS project first leaked out, I gave it an ice cube's chance in hell of succeeding. Now, after watching a sometimes touchy-sounding crew from Google's Mountain View, California, headquarters walk us through the ins and outs of the Chrome OS, I'm more convinced than ever that my original assessment was right on the money.

Fatal flaw No. 1: The Linux foundation

First, there's the core architecture. A derivative of Linux, the Chrome OS builds on Linus Torvald's popular open source foundation to create a lightweight, web-oriented desktop environment. However, it also inherits that platform's many warts, including spotty hardware compatibility.

From power management to display support, Linux has long been a minefield of buggy code and half-baked device driver implementations. Google recognizes this fact and, in a page out of the Apple Macintosh playbook, has taken the draconian measure of allowing the Chrome OS to be distributed exclusively on a series of as-yet-undisclosed netbook-like devices.

It's a move born of desperation. Google knows it can't possibly establish a viable hardware ecosystem and still meet its self-imposed release deadline of "mid-2010". So rather than do the hard work of courting device vendors and building certification processes, Google is taking the easy way out by micromanaging which systems will be allowed to ship with the Chrome OS and then dumping responsibility for the rest of the ecosystem onto the open source community.

Fatal flaw No. 2: The web user interface

Then there's the user interface. Google looks at the world through the prism of a web page. So it comes as no surprise that the primary interface to the Chrome OS is... Google Chrome, as in the Google browser.

Unlike a traditional OS, there's no desktop. The "applications" running under the Chrome OS are really just interactive web pages, with the Chrome browser's tabs serving to separate and organise them visually on the screen. Basic configuration tasks, like defining Wi-Fi settings, are handled via Chrome OS-hosted pop-up windows, while a simple status bar-like strip at the top of the display informs you about battery life, connectivity status, and so on.

Sadly, none of the above UI constructs is particularly original or compelling. The tabbed interface and "dockable" favourites are clearly derivative of Mac OS X and/or Windows (depending on whom you ask), as are the status icons and pull-down applications menu. In fact, nothing about the Chrome OS UI jumps out as innovative. Rather, it simply replaces one set of metaphors (Start menu, taskbar/Dock, system tray) with a bunch of webified equivalents.

And though I can certainly appreciate the advantages of doing away with those heavy legacy OS windowing layers - web content is lighterweight and easier to isolate from a security standpoint - it also serves to limit the environment's overall utility.

Share this article

X

Email this to a friend

Characters remaining: 337

What is A + B?

Comments

Richard Marsh said: Stopped taking this article seriously after the first paragraph under the Fatal flaw No 1 The Linux foundation heading Ive always found Linux boxes much easierquicker to install than Windows and far more stable mind you I havent used windows since early XP circa 2003 maybe I should give it another go Hardware compatibility problems Buy the right freaking hardware

Col said: Your article was so full of old fud it bored me to death I have already tried Chrome OS using Virtualbox and I can see how much potential it has and how popular it will become

Ray Woods said: So you say Linux has long been a minefield of buggy code and half-baked device driver implementationsNow that is interesting seeing much of the web backbone runs on Linux not to mention many super computers and so many work stations at NASA as well So it cant be that buggyMost of the problems with device drivers isnt with Linux but with the device manufacturers It is they who dont produce the support for Linux I wonder why Luckily many manufacturers do and today many good Linux distributions just work without problemsAfter spending a weekend rebuilding a 2007 Vista laptop up from the recovery disc up through SP1 amp 2 etc watching the HD light flashing for long periods with no one at home I say give me Linux every day To do the same thing with Linux Mint 7 would take less than an hour

Smart home- or wearable tech: which is more likely to benefit your digital life this year?

I'm more likely to buy smart home- than wearable tech this yearI'm more likely to buy wearable- than smart home tech this yearI'll probably buy both smart home- and wearable tech this yearI'm unlikely to buy smart home- or wearable tech this yearNot sure/don't know